I 6656 
3 
bpy 1 



003 234 079 9 # 



PA 6656 
.S3 
Copy 1 



Several orations 



Sallust's writings. 



Inaugural - Dissertation 

for the attainment of the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy 
and Master of Arts 

at the 

University of Rostock 

by 

Dr. phil. JULIUS SACHS 

of New -York. 




ROSTOCK. 

PHAGES j^OLDT'S POINTING ~pFFICE. 

1872. 



s 



."to 



?y^cp 



It is generally conceded that the greatest care has 
been bestowed by the ancient historians upon the elabora- 
tion of the orations which they have occasion to introduce, 
and that these consequently contribute in vast measure to 
elucidate the bearing and tendency of their entire product- 
ions. Numerous controversial points that have engrossed 
at any stated period the attention of a community, are not 
introduced to the reader in the form of narrative, 1 ) but a 
far more vivid impression is produced by attributing the 
various points at issue and their discussion to certain pro- 
minent representatives of the opposing factions; it is thus 
that the orations, in which they hold forth, present in clearly- 
defined terms the most favorable aspect of the opinions 
entertained by each party in regard to the absorbing question 
of the day. The historian of antiquity enables by this pro- 
cedure each intelligent reader to exercise his own judgment 
upon the conflicting views, and to mould from the indicated 
characteristics his own impressions of the period treated 
of, and its leading men. 2 ) In fact it is not unusual, that 
the representative man of a certain epoch is introduced in 
such manner, that his plans and designs, and even his pecu- 



x ) At present historians would find it insufficient, were they 
to record facts merely and their direct causes; they delight rather 
in portraying the mental processes that have affected the resolves 
of their actors. 

2 ) The orations in the work of Thucydides,- the greatest 
historian of Greece, are perhaps the most consummate works of 
art that have been handed down to us as embodiments of the fea- 
tures mentioned above; compare Tlmcyd. I. 32, 38, 37 etc., III. 



liarities of expression and reasoning are set forth in the 
course of some oratorical effort, attributed to him; in such 
bold relief for instance Marius stands forth in the oration 
ascribed to him in Sallust's Jugurtha, chap. 85. — 

The public advocate in pleading his cause before the 
tribunal of justice or haranguing the populace, was wont 
to bestow the most pleasing colors upon his side of the 
question, whilst he would endeavor to detract by all me- 
thods, faire or foul, from the value of his opponents argu- 
ment; nor could he carry out such a design with more 
prospect of success than by basing his plea upon some 
definite train of reasoning, carefully disposed and then 
accurately carried out. In quite similar manner was it 
necessary for the historian to proceed, whenever he em- 
ployed orations as the vehicle for the illustration of a certain 
individual's peculiarities. During the earlier stages of Gre- 
cian literature it was at the option of each orator and histo- 
rian to construe his speches, as inclination prompted him, 
and it is to this fact that we must ascribe that wonderful 
versatility of style, that we cannot but admire, and that 
could only arise, as long as expression and diction were 
free from all artificial restraint. — As early however as 
the fifth century before our era certain Sophists and rhe- 
toricians, Corax and Tisias, Gorgias and various others, 
mentioned by Quintilian in his Instit. Orat. III. 1. 8, had 
begun to propound certain theories on rhetoric in their 
treatises {ri%vav griTOQMcd), which seem however to have 
been stated rather unsatisfactorily; for Cicero, de Inventione 
II. 6 asserts that Aristotle was deserving of peculiar credit 
in regard to Rhetoric, because „cuj usque praecepta magna 
conquisita cura perspicue conscripserit, atque enodata 
diligent er exposuerit." — Aristotle by a careful com- 
parison of those „TV/vuv u which were already in existence 
with the productions of the best Greek orators developed 



a philosophical theory of the art; 1 ) almost simultaneously 
too the first practical system for the attainment of eloquence 
was devised, the x^rs Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 
attributed by most scholars of the present day in accordance 
with the views of Victorius and Spengel to Anaxim enes; 
this treatise from its supposed connection with Aristotle has 
fortunately escaped the fate of oblivion, and is still available 
as an admirable book of reference. 2 ) — Such was the skill, 
with which the ancient orators handled and applied the 
doctrines, as laid down in these theoretical works, that doubt 
might almost arise, whether these precepts had been gathe- 
red from practical oratory, or rather the mode of expression 
had been adapted to the rules as already developed. — 
Like all the other arts, cultivated by the Greeks, Rhetoric 
also found its way to Rome; at an earlier date it had already 
begun to flourish in Magna G-raecia and Sicily, and now 
teachers of rhetoric in both the Latin and Greek tongues 
abounded in the Roman capital, the latter especially enjoying 
a high reputation. — 

Let us now turn to the author, whose productions we 
intend to investigate. It would be natural indeed to argue 
from the character of his writings, that Sallust had thoroughly 
devoted himself in youth to the study of literature and the 
branches related to it, prominent among which was at that 
time the discipline of rhetoric, we have however his own 
direct evidence as to his pursuits mentioned in the Con- 
spiracy of Catiline, 4, 2 „sed a quo incepto studioque me 
ambitio mala detinuerat, eodem r egress us statui, res 
gestas populi Romani perscribere." We may even venture 
to specify that Sallust was undoubtedly acquainted in addition 



1 ) vid. Linder, De rerum dispositione apud Antiphontem et 
Anclocidem, oratores Atticos (Dissertt. philos. Lundenses,Vol.l4) p. 6. 

2 ) vid. L. Spengel, Ueber das Studium der Rhetorik bei den 
Alten, Munchen, p. 8 et 9, 



6 

to the Greek treatises with the writings of Cicero and Cor- 
nificius (whom I am ready to accept on the authority of 
Kayser as author of the books addressed to Herennius) 
on rhetorical matters; for Cicero's treatise on Invention was 
probably written 86 B. 0. (vide de Oratore, I. 5; de Offi- 
ces, II. 87) and the work dedicated to Herennius shortly 
after (vide Kayser's Preface to Cornificius, p. XL), whilst 
Sallust's Catiline was composed shortly after Caesar's death 
in the year 43 or 42 B. C. And yet this latter production, 
although written at a time when Sallust had attained to 
manhood and was conversant with the theory of literary 
composition, is somewhat less polished and smooth in the 
application of these principles than his last work, the Hi- 
stories; the former composition moreover was undertaken 
at a time which was separated from the date of the events 
it recorded by -so slight an interval that the writer could 
not venture even for the sake of artistic unity to deviate 
from the actual sequence of events and the peculiarities of 
individuals, although he would not hesitate in modifying the 
narrative by his language with all its forcible or delicate 
shades of meaning. — It is my intention in the course of 
the following pages to explain and indicate in several ora- 
tions, contained in the writings of Sallust, the application 
of certain leading rhetorical principles, as laid down by the 
old writers on the subject; I have chosen for the purpose 
the oration of Caesar in the Catiline, of Marius in the Ju- 
gurtha, and of Philippus in the Histories. — 



The oration which Sallust has commemorated in the 
51. chapter of his Catiline, was delivered by Caesar at that 
meeting of the senate, in which the question of the punishment 
that was to be meted out to the confederates of Catiline was 
discussed. Close observation of the tendency of this speech 



will disclose the fact, that it must be classed with those 
orations that are known as deliberative, 1 ) since Caesar 
in urging and favoring one mode of retribution, uses all 
means for exciting distrust and dissatisfaction against the 
propositions of his adversaries. — It may not be out of 
place however, before we analyze and discuss the compo- 
sition of the oration, to refer to an odd conjecture advanced 
by a French scholar, Merimee, in his 'Etudes sur l'Histoire 
Romaine, IT., p. 240. He endeavors to promulgate the 
theory that the speech, as recorded by Sallust, is simply 
a literal rendition of the oratorical effort of Caesar on that 
occassion. To establish this theory he resorts to various 
methods of proof, the majority of which are of minor im- 
portance. Two of his arguments are however worthy of 
discussion; in the first place he refers to the statement of 
Plutarch in the Cato Minor, chap. 23 (compare also 
Cicero pro Sulla, chap. 14) that Cicero had ordered careful 
notes to by taken of all the speeches, delivered during the 
trial of the conspirators, and then in a kind of general 
statement asserts that the style of this oration is decidedly 
at variance with that, that is apparent in the rest of Sal- 
lust's writings. In the latter respect he is certainly at 
fault, for Dietsch, a German scholar thoroughly conversant 
with Sallust's peculiarities of style, says 2 ) that the con- 
ciseness of expression, the gravity of language, the deve- 
lopment of the oration in the shape of short phrases rather 
than by means of well-rounded periods, and the frequently 
abrupt connection of ideas portray the individuality of Sal- 
lust rather than that of Caesar. — Turning to the first 
argument, which is based upon the assumption that Sallust 



Cornificius, $hap. I., §. 2 says: (genus) deliberativum est, 
quod habet in se suasionem et dissuasionem. 

2 ) In his edition of Sallust, published 1846, page 241. — 



8 



gathered his knowledge of the speech from the verbatim 
report, which it was most convenient to him to insert 
entirely into his work, we find the distinct intimation in 
the language of the historian (Catil. ch. 50, §. 5 'hujus- 
cemodi verbis) that he aims only at a general reproduction 
of the ideas of Caesar; for although Sal lust endeavored 
especially in his later writings to follow with all possible 
accuracy the existing records of facts, he was by no means 
a slavish adherent to words, when they would be likely to 
interfere with the design of his work; this accounts for the 
absolute discrepancy between the oration of Cato, as framed 
by Sallust in his Catiline, chap. 52, and the contents of 
the veritable harangue, extracts from which are given in 
Cicero's Letters to Atticus, Book 12, epistle 21 (compare 
Teuffel, De Sallustio et Tacito, Tubingen, page 19). Merimee, 
page 270 fails ignominiously in endeavoring to prove the 
indentity of Cato's oration in the Catiline with the original 
speech. Sallust, like all historians of antiquity, finds it 
more convenient to illustrate men's thoughts and determi- 
nations by orations such as the above — mentioned ones, 
than by a wearisome critical narrative. Thus Thucydides, 
Book I., ch. 22, states, that he introduces his characters 
speaking „cog av kdoxovv fyto« Zxaarot neol nov aei nctgovrwv 
rcc diovra pidhot aineJv", „as it appeared to me that each one 
would especially say that which was befitting to his dis- 
position concerning the questions of the day." 

A very interesting illustration of the system, pursued 
by the ancient writers in the use of public documents, is affor- 
ded by a comparison of the contents of a bronze tablet, found 
at Lyons, and containing a speech of the emperor Claudius, 
with a version of the same oration as given by Tacitus in 
the 12. book of the Annals, chap. 24. The emperor advocates 
in the oration, as handed down by the inscription, the 
extension of the rights of citizenship to the inhabitants of 



Gallia Comata; his arguments are extremely characteristic 
of the man, they show no apparent connection with the 
topic at issue, he wanders off into antiquarian researches 
about the inhabitants ; in fact, the whole speech corroborates 
to the fullest extent the traditions of the emperor's eccen- 
tricities. Tacitus however avails himself of none of these 
opportunities for the delineation of character, in which he 
otherwise delights, since he has already given in the 
opening chapters of the same book a description of Claudius' 
manners; 1 ) that he was acquainted with the document is 
certain beyond a doubt, not only from his rendition of the 
contents, but from the general accuracy of Tacitus in in- 
vestigating every official statement he could find, and copies 
of this important speech must certainly have existed at 
Rome also, although the matter under discussion was only 
of particular moment to the inhabitants of that one province 
(vide Alphonse de Boissieu, Inscriptions antiques de 
Lyons, chap. IV.). From this document therefore and the 
application of its sentiments we can judge that even the 
most accurate of ancient historians did not hesitate to forego 
the verbal tradition of certain orations, when the arrange- 
ment of his work required it. — To return however to the 
oration of Caesar. All orators must aim according to the 
rhetoricians (Quintilian, III., 5, 2 ; Cicero, de optunio genere 
oratorum, §. 4) at the attainment of one of three ends ; they 
must endeavor to instruct (docere), to move the emotions 
(move re), or to edify (delectare). In the oration which 
we have under consideration, the author strives to attain 
the first two results, for, whilst he explains and elucidates 
the states of affaires, he endeavors at the same time to win 



J ) Such description is technically known as notatio (Cornific. 
IV., 63); the Greek rhetoricians call it ri&onoua (Hermogenes, I, 
44 in "Walz's edition of the Rhetores Graeci). 



10 



his hearers over to his cause. — I have already remarked, 
that this oration is to be classified among those of the de- 
liberative kind ; of this class however two modifications exist 
(Cornificius, III., 2; Cicero, De Inventione, I, 17), accor- 
ding as it may be the tendency of the speech to advise which 
of two alternative courses deserves to be adopted, or which 
course in preference to all others should be pursued. To the 
former of these two modifications the oration under discussion 
must not be referred, but rather to the latter, since any one 
of the various methods of punishment that would be appro- 
priate to such criminality is to be selected. — A plea, such 
as this oration evidently is, should be framed with a certain 
consideration to its utility; this feature may be introduced 
in such manner, that only the advisability of a measure" is 
urged, or the additional motive of dignity and honor may 
be added (Corn. III., 3; Cic. de Invent. II, 157); thus 
Caesar after having allayed the fears of the senate by the 
assurance that his proposed measures are conducive of sa- 
fety (§• 19 of the oration), exhorts to particular care, lest 
the reputation and honor of the governing powers be 
tarnished by the stain that any rash deed might produce. 
According to Cornificius every discussion that introduces the 
dignity of a proceeding as one of the elements, may dwell 
either upon the absolute rectitude or on the relative me- 
ritoriousness of a deed; in the oration before us the latter 
point 1 ) is only casually urged in §. 7 „neu magis irae vostrae 
quam famae consulatis; a in all tfie other arguments the 
criterion of that, which is absolutely rectum 2 ) is applied. 
Various phases of the rectum are mentioned by the 



*) Corninc. III., 7: laudabile est, quod conficit honestam 
et praesentem et consequentem coinmemorationem. — 

2 ) Cornific. III., 3; Cicero, Inv. II. 159 designates the rectum 
of Cornificius by the name of simplex honestas. 



11 



rhetoricians, out of which Sallust introduces prudence 
(compare Cornif. III., 4; Cicero, Invent. II., 160) in all 
those passages, in which he warns against a loss of temperate 
and worthy demeanor, as in §§. 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 26, 27, 
as one of the requisites of a correct course; and fully aware 
of their value and general effect, he introduces proofs to 
confirm his assertions (in §§. 4, 5, 6; compare Corn. III., 4: 
„qua in re facile id, quod velimus, exemplo allato persuadere 
possimus." — With somewhat less completeness, but with at 
least the same impressiveness, he enhances the value of his 
propositions by proving their justice, and in his demand, 
as expressed in §. 7 „hoc item vobis providendum esse quam 
majoribus" we have a clear concordance with the views of 
Cornificius, who holds that the pleader will exert a strong 
influence „si leges et mores civitatis egregie dicemus oportere 
servari." Caesar, in exhorting his hearers to cherish and 
augment these precious traits, adds to their attractiveness 
by the glowing colors of his description. — The general 
tendency of this oration has thus been set forth; we can 
therefore attempt a closer analysis of its composition. The 
ancients distinguished six various divisions of an oration, in 
each of which the skill of its author might be manifest 
(compare Cicero, de Oratore, II., 80; Cornif. I., 4), the 
exordium, narratio, divisio, confirmatio, con- 
futatio, and conclusio. Of these parts Quintilian, III., 
9, 1 omits the divisio, others embrace the confirmatio 
and confutatio in the one name „argumentatio". — By 
means of the exordium or introduction the minds of the 
hearers are to be interested in the topic, so that they will 
follow the development with interest. The style of this 
exordium must be varied, according as the oration differs 
in its essential characteristics. The motives of this oration 
and the objects aimed at are such, that it must be classified 
under the g e n u s dubium, which Cicero, Invent. I., 20 



12 



defines as being applicable, if the possibility of judicial 
discrimination be doubtful, or the cause partake both of an 
honorable and a base phase, so that it may arouse both 
good feeling and give offence; in addition to this clear 
correspondence with the requirements of the definition, the 
introductory words (de rebus dubiis) put an end to all 
doubts. — To make his hearers kindly disposed, should be 
the first duty of the speaker. For this purpose the 
advantages of his own view of the case must be set forth 
by the speaker, whilst all possible odium must be attached 
to the cause of his adversaries, their arguments invalidated, 
their opinions stroghly impugned. Nor can the speaker at 
times omit, in expatiating upon his own views, to flatter his 
hearers by some remarks on their good qualities and their 
powers of discernment. Thus Catiline in the famous oration 
in chap. 20 sums up in few but appropriate terms his ap- 
preciation of the merits of his followers „ virtus fidesque 
vostra spectata, — neque per ignaviam aut vana ingenia 
— multis et magnis tempestatibus vos cognovi fortis fidos- 
que mihi," then gratifies their tastes by calling the con- 
spiracy „maxumum atque pulcherrumum facinus", and adds 
to their conviction of their own importance by asserting 
the identity of his own interests and grievances with theirs 
(§. 4 of this oration). — The exordium in Caesar's oration 
begins with a general statement „omnis homines, qui de 
rebus dubiis consultant, ab odio amicitia ira atque miseri- 
cordia vacuos esse decet", which is very well adapted "to 
the following discussion, forming as it does the basis of the 
succeeding arguments (compare Cornif. I., 11; Cic, Inv. 
I., 26). The general observation thus laid down is enlarged 
upon in the next sentence „haud facile — paruit", whose 
latter half contains an observation, culled from a recognition 
of the facts in the first clause. The mode of reasoning in 
this sentence is as follows: „whoever follows the promptings 



13 



of his desires, will not recognize truth, for no one who has 
become slave to his passions, can in all cases attain that 
which is honorable. The words of §. 3 (I designate the 
paragraphs by Jacobs' edition) contain a vivid contrast of 
the two alternatives, which were first presented in the 
terms „lubidini et Usui", and the speaker thus points 
out clearly that there can exist no room for some inter- 
mediate field of action, in which the two extremes could 
be reconciled. In corroboration of these assertions the 
speaker now presents reminiscences from history, which he 
has however selected with such skill, that the pride of his 
auditors is involuntarily flattered by them; for in omitting 
the mention of those occurrences that show the results of 
human depravity, and holding up as worthy of imitation 
the praiseworthy abstinence of their own ancestors from 
such vices, he has secured the firmest hold upon their good 
feelings, since the Romans more than any other people 
were firm believers in the potency of precedents. These 
considerations form the contents of §§. 5 and 6 ; in §.7 he 
then urges upon the senators the propriety of imitating the 
example of their ancestors, and after having made this 
appeal as impressive as possible, he unfolds at length his 
own opinion of the proper punishment, that the conspirators 
should receive. — If we now cast a retrospective glance 
upon the introduction, which embraces the first seven para- 
graphs of the oration, its moderate length accords with the 
theories of the rhetoricians on this point (Corn. I., 11 
„vitiosum est exordium, quod nimis longum est;" Cic, Inv. 
I. 26 thus defines the bearing of the term „ Ion gum": 
„quod pluribus verbis aut sententiis ultra quain satis est, 
producitur") ; in fact, the orator has employed only very 
circumscribed limits for the exposition of a leading point in 
his arguments. As regards the language of this exordium, 
it wants neither simplicity nor ease (Cornific, L, 11); that 



14 

general statement is introduced which is peculiarly adapted 
to the actual situation, and which does not possess the 
evil qualification of being equally applicable to any other 
oration, or of being readly perverted or even identically 
employed by the opponents (such faults are respectively 
termed vulgare, commune, commutabile; see Quin- 
tilian, IV., 1. 71; Cic, Invent. I., 26; Cicero's Brutus, 
§. 209). — A closer examination of the periods in this in- 
troduction shows, that they are neither too artificially con- 
structed, that is, in too involved style, nor are they too 
long; an exess in the latter respect would be entirely out 
of place in an oration of the genus deli be rati vum, and 
could be tolerated only in one, devoted purely to forensic plead- 
ing (compare Quintilian, IX. 4, 128; Oet ling in his essay on 
Cicero's oration pro Caelio, Gottingen, p. 26). Each of the 
paragraphs 1 , to 3 constitutes in itself a period of thought, 
expressed however in each case differently, and yet only 
modified in such manner, as to make the change appear free 
from startling transitions (Cicero, de Oratore, II. 177); the 
gradation thus carefully prepared brings us finally to the 
shortest possible form of a sentence in the term „valet", 
and yet notwithstanding its apparent bareness, the brevity 
of the expression is perfectly appropriate. — Another method 
of bringing out contrasts into strong relief lies in a similar 
sequence of expression; thus in §. 4 the contrasting thoughts 
are uttered in responsive combinations of words; to the 
words „reges atque populi (sc. alieni)" the succeeding 
ones „m ajores nostri" answer, furthermore „i r a autmi- 
sericordia impulsi" and „contra lubidi n em animi 
s u i" correspond, likewise „m a 1 e c o n s u 1 u e r i n t" and „r e c t e 
atque or dine fee ere". The responsive character of the 
phrases in this paragraph would be still more complete, 
if in its initial part the reading of the Vatican and other 
manuscripts „quae" would be substituted for „qui", as given 



15 

by the celebrated Parisian manuscript; for we would then 
have a decisive similarity of phraseology betveen the terms, 
„m emorandi quae reges" and „ea m a 1 o d i c e r e, 
quae majores nostri". — It maybe worthy of our 
attention to note the application of various kinds of rheto- 
rical ornamentation. The four phrases that constitute para- 
graph 1 Sallust has arranged in such manner, that the first 
pair which is contrasted, is without any connecting particle, 
i. e. aavvdirojQ, the second pair is linked together by the 
conjunction „atque" (in §. 4, in which the statements are 
not to be connected comprehensively, the particle aut is 
employed); Jacobs in his edition of Sallust, page 20 has 
recorded numerous examples of this style of transition in 
the construction. — Quite analogous to the use of at que 
in this connection is that of „s i m u 1 — e t", a combination, 
for which Sallust seems to possess a great predilection; 
thus it occurs in his Catiline, ch. 43. 2; in the Jugurtha, ch. 
20. 1; 25. 5; 84. 5. Even „simul — ac", which most 
authors consider one expression in the sense of „as soon as", 
is used in the same manner as „simul — et" in the Catiline, 
chap. 28, §. 4 „egestate simul ac dolore". — A certain degree 
of liveliness is imparted to the language in this portion of 
the introduction by the sudden transition in the tenses of the 
verbs; from the form of the present tense in „providet" 
which is usual in such sentences that embody a general 
statement, the writer passes at once to the perfect in „pa- 
ruit", which corresponds in its meaning to the gnomic 
aorist of the Greeks, for this too introduces some general 
observation; cf. §. 11 of this oration, also Catiline, chap. 
10, 4; 11, 3. A slight tinge of difference of course exists 
between the present and this kind of perfect tense, so slight 
however as to make the two forms almost identical in 
meaning. A similar variation in form exists in §. 3 in the 
verbs intenderis and valet, the former of which suggests 



16 



an action which must be completed, before the condition, 
implied in the second verb, can arise ; the use of the pres- 
ent tense inpossidet is based upon the fact that this verb 
expresses a passive state rather than an action. — The 
entire sentence „ubi intenderis ingenium, valet; si lubido 
possidet, nihil valet" reveals in its composition that figure 
of speech, which the Greeks call ccvtIOstov (compare Hero- 
dian, VIII., pag. 602, ed. Walz); Cornificius, IV., 21 calls it 
contentio, Qnintilian, IX., 3, 81 names it contrapositum, 
neither one of them however defines the technical term accu- 
rately, but simply illustrates its application; also Cicero's Orator, 
§§. 65 and 135 and his Partitiones Oratoriae, 21 may 
be compared. — A certain degree of correspondence is further- 
more indicated by the equality in the number of adjectives 
employed in the expressions „magna atque magnifica" and 
„infida atque advorsa". Other antitheses are found in §§. 6 
and 7 „quom saepe Carthaginienses — fecissent, nunquam 
ipsi talia fecere"; „magis quid se dignum foret, quam 
quid in ill o s jure fieri posset"; „P. Lentuli et ceterorum 
scelus quam vostra dignitas"; „neu magis irae vostrae 
quam famae consulatis". 

The exordium is generally followed by the nar ratio, 
which is defined as an exposition of the events bearing upon 
the proceedings (compare Cornif. I. 4 and 12 etc.; Cic. Inv. 
I. 27 etc.); this portion of the oration is however by no 
means absolutely necessary at all times ; thus in an oration 
of the deliberative kind it is entirely at the option of 
the orator to introduce the exposition or not (Cornif. III. 7 
says „si cujus rei narratio incidet, eadem ratione [sc. qua 
tractatur in causa judiciali] narrari oportebit"; and Cicero, 
Partitiones Oratoriae 13 „nec multum sane saepe narrandum 
est, est enim narratio aut praeteritarum rerum aut praesen- 
tium, suasio autem futurarum"), — The oration we are now 
considering also lacks any narrative, which would be entirely 



17 



unnecessary, as the facts of the case were thoroughly known 
to all, and could neither be placed in a more advantageous 
light nor deteriorated by any coloring in the narrative. — 
The divisio which the rhetoricians enumerate next, consists 
of two parts (Cornif. L, 17; Cic. Inv. I., 31 ; Quintilian VII., 
1, 5 etc.; Victorinus Commentary on Cicero's R-hetorica, 
chap. 22, as given in Halm's edition of the Rhetores, page 
209), the first of which shows the points of concordance 
and of disagreement in the views of the contesting parties, 
the latter embraces those portions of the argument, known 
as the enumeratio and expositio. In the oration under 
consideration the divisio (which corresponds to the nqoO-eaig 
of Aristotle, Rhetor. III., 13) is not introduced in one special 
part of the oration, but traces of it are already apparent 
throughout the entire introduction; so thoroughly does the 
object of the speech absorb the attention of the speaker, 
that its influence is felt in the entire coloring of the argu- 
ment. — We now arrive at the argumentatio, which 
from the nature of the argument is of particular moment 
here. Were this oration a forensic effort, it would be 
necessary to determine in this instance at first the con- 
stitute causae, which according to Cic. Invent. I., 10 
is „primo deprecatio defensoris cum accusatoris insimulatione"; 
its nature and application are discussed by Cornificius, I., 
18, 19, 24; Cicero, Partit. Orator. 33; Topica, 92; Hermo- 
genes tieqI Gtaoacov, 12. 3; 48. 5. In our oration such 
accurate determination is unnecessary. — The historian first 
frames in §. 8 in the skape of a conclusion the general 
sentiment, to which his preceding remarks have tended, and 
gives the points of variance of the two senatorial factions. 
He unfolds in §. 9 the mode of reasoning, adopted by the 
opposite party, but even in narrating them, he succeeds in 
casting reprobation upon their motives and intentions. A 
strong reproach is embodied in the statement, that when 

2 



18 



the urgency of the times calls for bold resolves, they waste 
the given opportunities in feminine laments on the corruption 
in the republic, and a further sting is added to this reproof 
by the characterization of these wails in the terms compo- 
site atque magnifice". In fact the entire theory of his 
opponents is stated in such pompous style, that his plan 
of inciting ridicule against them is manifest. This dignity 
and gravity is brought about by combining the clauses in 
pairs in such manner that the terms are grouped in each 
statement in similar sequence; thus there is correspondence 
between the phrases „quae belli saevitia esset" and „quae 
victis acciderent"; ,,rapi virgines pueros" and „divelli liberos"; 
the application furthermore of the figure of asyndeton 
adds considerably to this feature of solemnity. — In §. 10 
we have the refutation, introduced by the particle sed; an 
earnest appeal to the gods arouses anew the feeling of 
earnest attention, which the occasion demands, and which 
has been rendered somewhat indistinct by the vein of sat- 
ire, that pervaded the immediately preceding passage. The 
plans and counsels of his adversaries are shown by the 
speaker to be perverse; starting from an analysis of the 
peculiarity of human nature, which cannot be rejected, viz: 
that it is never prone to underrate the value and severity 
of mishaps, he proceeds to warn the senators from permit- 
ting themselves to become in recollection of the designs of 
the conspirators callous toward them; for such a failing, 
while comparatively pardonable among those, whose station 
in life is humble and whose sphere of action is therefore 
limited, becomes a grievous offence in men, whose position 
in the community is a highly responsible one, and whose 
example is readily employed as precedent. Certain general 
statements (rationes communes) are made, conveying the 
idea that all mental excitement and hastiness of judgment 
must be avoided by those in supreme power, and are then 



19 



substantiated by arguments. In §. 15 the orator shows 
that his opinion of the criminality of the conspirators coin- 
cides with the views, but the suggestions of prudence deter 
him from the extreme severity, of his opponents. The next 
paragraphs, although in their wording at first complimentary 
to the leader of the opposing party, Silanus, and laudatory 
of his motives, convey a strong rebuke of his proposition, 
which implies a desperate condition of affairs in the com- 
munity in the severity of its features. Another and very 
judicious mode of refuting the opposing arguments is the 
introduction and expansion of the idea, that capital punish- 
ment, far from being the dread of criminals, in truth relieves 
them from a wretched life of misery and cares; at the 
same time he bonishes every suspicion of his former com- 
plicity or sympathy with the conspirators by his strong 
invectives against them, as in §. 25 „in parricidas reipub- 
licae", in §. 23 „quid autem acerbum aut nimis grave est 
in homines tanti facinoris convictos"; E. Hag en in his 
„Untersuchungen iiber romische Greschichte, I., p. 312" re- 
cognizes, without any necessity however according to my 
opinion, in this opposition to the capital punishment a spirit 
of bravado on the part of Caesar, who thus intimates that, 
though suspected of some connection with Catiline's friends, 
he would not attempt to purge himself by renouncing his 
own convictions and agreeing to the mode of penalty, desired 
by the majority. — The orator shrewdly clothes his desires 
and plans in such a way, that he seems actuated to his 
course only by concern for the fair fame of the senate; 
with the air of a prophet he asks them to desist from the 
first intrusion on the laws, for even though the deviation 
in the present case were not so thoroughly criminal, yet 
the example thus set might prove a dangerous argument 
in the hands of the unprincipled; and whilst deprecating 
the very thought, that any of those who were just now 



20 

clothed in power, were capable of such perversion of right, 
he still indicates the justice of his apprehensions by the allusion 
to several occurrences in Greek and Roman political history. — 
Another reliable hold upon the attention of his hearers the 
speaker finds in the great esteem, which the usages of their 
forefathers had with the Romans; for these, when certain 
magistrates made too injudicious a use of capital punish- 
ment, which had been recently introduced from Greece, 
decreed that banishment might be substituted for it. A 
similar modification he desires to introduce in the case of 
the present offenders, although his position forbids him from 
representing it as more lenient than the death — penalty. 
Finally he presents in §. 43 a question that some one of 
his auditors might feel himself justified in asking, and by 
properly answering this, he paves the way to a short sum- 
ming up of the argument, which constitutes them the 
conclusio of the oration. — Turning from this general 
analysis, we may now search in detail for the degree of 
concordance in the author's composition of the argumen- 
tatio with the principles of the rhetoricians. Cornificius, 
II., 28, also Cicero, Invent. I., 57 etc., and Q,uintilian, V., 
14 consider that argumentatio most perfect which embraces 
the five following parts „propositio, ratio, rationis confor- 
matio, exornatio, complexio". The propositio, for which 
also the name „expositio" is frequently substituted (cf. 
Cicero, Invent. I., 58 and 59; Kayser's note to Cornificius, 
II., 56), states as summarily as possible, what the speaker 
intends to prove. It is represented in this oration by the 
words of §. 8 : „nam si digna poena pro factis eorum repe- 
ritur, novum consilium adprobo: sin magnitudo sceleris om- 
nium ingenia exuperat, eis utendum censeo, quae legibus 
comparata sunt", and all further arguments are intended to 
strengthen this statement. — In expressing this propositio, 
none of those faults have been allowed to intrude, against 



21 



which the teachers of rhetoric warn, such as the drawing 
of false conclusions from the peculiarities of single parts re- 
garding qualities of the whole, or the omission of single 
data in the course of an enumeration, or the introduction 
of some foreign point. — The entire passage that enlarges 
on the complaints of his adversaries from §. 9 to the end 
of §. 12 is employed as a means of introducing the ratio 
(„ratio est, quae causam demonstrat veram esse, quam in- 
tendimus, brevi subjectione", Cornif. II., 28), which is fram- 
ed in the words „qui magno imperio praediti in excelso 
aetatem agunt, eorum facta cuncti mortales novere". — 
Although this ratio is much more lengthy than strict ac- 
cordance with the doctrines of the rhetoricians sanctions, 
nevertheless its length is rendered less obnoxious, if we 
consider its importance in connection with the propositio 
for the entire argument. — The „corfirmatio rationis" 
which now follows is to confirm by various arguments the 
previously developed ratio. It opens with an admonition 
to avoid the results of a false system of reasoning, such 
as the opposing party is represented as having been guided 
by; the language employed is sufficiently clear „sed ple- 
rique mortales postrema meminere, et in hominibus impiis 
scelerum eorum obliti de poena disserunt, si ea paulo sae- 
vior fuit". He delates upon the gross injustice which is 
likely to arise from acquiescence in an opinion, that is 
tarnished by vindictiveness and hatred, and therefore in 
reality violates the spirit of the judicial sentence. — His 
final argument, based upon the propriety of imitating the 
judicious resolves of their ancestors, is of particular weight 
at this time, when internal dissensions, confusing and ob- 
scuring the purer motives of men, demand rather a moder- 
ate application of existing penalties than the innovations, 
proposed by the opposing faction (§§. 41 and 42). — That 
element also of an excellent argumentatio, known as the 



22 



exornatio, and used for the purpose of adorning and 
completing the plea after the necessary reasoning has been 
brought forward, is also apparent in various portions of the 
oration. Thus the sentiment, expressed in §.20 concerning 
capital punishment, though it constitutes a portion of the 
syllogism, serves by its philosophical turn to ornament and 
elevate the tone of discourse; a further contribution of this 
kind exists in the illustrations, cited in §§. 28 to 35 to de- 
monstrate the danger of innovations upon existing laws, 
and in those mentioned as evidences of the disinclination of 
the ancestors to tolerate new and unsatisfactory practices. 
A certain air of cheerfulness pervades these remarks, that 
is appropriate to the purpose, with which they are conceiv- 
ed. — Of the five subdivisions, mentioned above, the com- 
plexio alone is wanting in this oration, in other words, that 
part which once more collects the phases of the argument- 
atio, and in grouping them, closes up the oration; Cornifi- 
cius however himself admits (II., 30) that in a short and 
clearly arranged oration this part may be omitted. — A 
few peculiarities, that are worthy of mention, still remain; 
thus the suddenness, with which the orator addresses Sila- 
nus in §. 18, a procedure that is not unusual in forensic 
harangue, and that never fails to intensify the interest of the 
hearers in the matter under discussion. The series of quest- 
ions in §§. 21 — 25 imparts additional life to the subject by 
its oddity; the replies, which the opponents might possibly 
give as excuses for their plans, are straightway themselv- 
es clothed in the shape of questions, to which the speaker 
then replies in the most decisive terms (as in the words 
„an quia lex Porcia vetat, etc."). — A general retrospect- 
ive view will show us, that the arguments employed and 
developed were in all cases appropriate, that the necessary 
illustrations were added, wherever they contributed to im- 
part strength to reasoning, and that as much of rhetorical 



23 



ornamentation, as such orations can bear, has been employed. 
We cannot fail however to notice the pleasure that Sallust 
takes in general philosophic reflections, which, agreeable as 
they are in the course of historical narrative, where the 
mind finds in them a delightful opportunity for temporary 
rest of the imaginative faculties, are less suited to the con- 
tinuous flow of an address; and in this particular feature 
the genius of Sallust asserts itself without regard for the 
propriety of such an insertion under the given circumstances. 



An examination of the various orations, as commemo- 
rated in the Bellum Jugurthinum, proved to me that 
for the purposes of the present investigation the address of 
Adherbal (chap. 14) is but ill-suited; for though the dispo- 
sition of the arguments is by no means a poor one, yet the 
train of thought is extremely limited. Cowed down by 
timidity and an ignoble soul, Adherbal feels that his appeals 
for consideration must be based merely on the merits of 
his ancestors, and not on his own qualifications. His in- 
constant mind is manifest in the rapid transitions, in which 
he at times commiserates the untimely death of his brother, 
and then again envies him his speedier deliverance from the 
bonds of human woe; in these strongly marked character- 
istics the historian endeavored to depict an existence, devoid 
of all manliness, incompetent of resolves, and therefore 
buffeted about at the mercy of others. We cannot fail at 
the same time to recognize in the portrayal of Jugurtha, 
the inferior of Adherbal in the advantages of birth, his im- 
mense intellectual superiority over the effeminate lawful 
heir to the throne, and can scarcely feel sympathy with 
the misfortunes of the latter. — 

Out of the number of orations, that still remain in 
the Jugurtha, I have selected for discussion that one, .which 
Marius delivered before the Roman people, since it affords 



24 



us an excellent picture of the dissensions in those days 
between the nobility and the lower orders. It was Marius > 
aim to work by means of this oration on the populace in 
such a way, as to incite them to active participation in his 
expedition against Jugurtha, and to gain favor for himself 
by exposing the intrigues of the aristocratic party. The 
speech belongs therefore to the genus demonstrativum; 
it may be advisable to treat it thus, that we enumerate the 
various sub-divisions, and then observe, to what extent they 
are in harmony with the laws of the rhetoricians. — In 
the prooemium the speaker inveighs against those who 
in their endeavors to find favor with the populace assume 
the semblance of qualities, which they speedily drop, after 
their object has been attained; he asserts and proves the 
difference of his tendencies from those of such dissemblers; 
and indicates what he considers fit by expatiating upon the 
faults and weaknesses of his adversaries (Cornific. III., 11 
„in hujus modi causa principium sumetur a nostra persona 
...si vituperabimus : quod placeat ostendi, quid nobis dis- 
pliceat, ex aliorum vituperatione")- — He then points out 
the difficulties of the position, conferred on him by the 
popular voice, which are augmented by the necessity of 
reconciling things and wishes, utterly at variance with each 
other (§. 3), and that too, when he can depend for the success 
of his agitations, not upon the fame of his ancestry, but 
simply upon the weight of his own qualifications. This 
explicit account of his deeds forms the nar ratio, and 
serves to increase his own glory and to excite feelings of 
contempt against his opponents (compare Corn. III., 13; 
I., 12 — 16). The narrative is introduced here for two 
reasons, first for the sake of fides, i. e. of. establishing 
the good will of virtuous citizens in his favor (Corn. I., 12), 
then too for the sake of a transition, for after stating in 
these . paragraphs in a general manner, that his endeavors 
have met with the approbation of excellent men, he pro- 



25 



ceeds to explain and justify his system of action in life. 
With §.7 he begins to compare his own merits with the 
absence of them in his adversaries, and mentions casually 
the principles of his actions, as in §. 8 „quae ante vostra 
beneficia gratuito faciebam" etc. After this comparison of 
his own theory of life (which corresponds to the precepts 
for the comparatio, as laid down by Cornific. III., 13: 
„exponemus, quas res laudaturi simus aut vituperaturi") 
with the turn of mind and habits of the nobility, the orator 
in place of relating events in historical order „deinde ut 
quaeque quove tempore res erit gesta, ordine dicemus" 
(Corn. III., 13) discusses the most recent development, and 
institutes from this as a starting point a comparison of for- 
mer occurrences; this too is sanctioned by the statement of 
Cornific. III., 15 „non necesse est, nos omnis has partes in 
laudem aut in vituperationem transferre". He next attacks 
the nobility for their ill-concealed animosity at his elevation 
to command in numidia, and depicts with apparent gratific- 
ation the advantages, of which these unworthy descendants 
of a noble ancestry are proud, their old stock and their 
ancient lineage (vetus prosapia, multae imagines), advantages 
that are of course purely accidental, with which he contrasts 
their total lack of individual merit, and their inefficiency 
for such a responsible position as his own through their lack 
of military experience. — A few grammatical points require 
in this connection some explanation, and we must therefore 
pause in the rhetorical analysis. — Jacobs in the Weidmann 
edition of Sallust, page 179 supposes that a certain degree 
of irony is intended by the use of the obsolete term ^pro- 
sapia"; that it was antiquated at this time, is evinced by 
the language of Cicero, Timaeus, sive de universo fragm. 
§.11 „et eorum, ut utamur veteri verbo, prosapiam"; Quin- 
tilian, I., 6, 40 and VIII., 3, 26 considers the application 
of the word as something unrefined „insulsum", whilst it 
is of frequent occurrence in Plautus and Cato. As Sallust 



26 



however strives everywhere to impart a venerable flavor 
to his diction by the use of expressions, that were peculiar 
to a previous age of Latinity, I can hardly recognize the 
necessity of Jacobs' assumption. — In the same phrase of 
paragraph 10 we find the words „nullius stipendi", which 
form the very strongest contrast to the preceding words, 
joined to these by the particle et, which therefore partakes 
in this case of oppositional force (a similar use of the par- 
ticle que may be observed in the Catiline, chap. 48, §. 4 
and 50, §. 4). The manuscripts unite in giving this particle 
et at this point; the grammarian, Priscian, II. pages 221 
and 360, in recording this passage, uses in place of et the 
particle ac, which is utterly inappropriate on account of 
the preceding ac, as the two combined would destroy the 
intended contrast; the reading of Priscian can of course have 
no value on this point, as he mentions the passage to illu- 
strate an entirely different matter, that peculiar use of the 
genitive in place of the ablative, an imitation of a Greek 
construction, by which the object of possession or result of 
an action is put in the genitive; and moreover, quot pro- 
bably from memory, he has omitted in his citation the „ac" 
before „multarum imaginum". — Returning to our analysis, 
we find an admirable delineation of the paltry spirit of these 
noblemen, who are the objects of his attacks in the words 
„trepidet festinet, sumat"; the abrupt style of the expression 
imparts the idea of uneasiness to the passage. The simple 
narrative, which shows forth the hesitation of the other 
commanders, forms a bitter criticism of their actions, whilst 
he gives a clear picture of his own views on the admini- 
stration of such authority, and of his practical endeavors to 
carry out these theories. A comparison, that he institutes, 
reveals the fact that he can be reproached merely for the 
humility of his origin, the indolent nobility however for 
their transgressions and crimes; nor does he pride himself 
in a spirit of offensive arrogance on his lowly parentage, 



27 



for he asserts that individual excellence elevates or degrades 
a man. The sum and substance of the whole argument is 
really expressed in §. 14: „contemnunt novitatem meam, 
ego illorum ignaviam; mihi fortuna, illis probra objectantur". 
The phraseology in this sentence is very marked, for in the 
first section of it the pronouns and substantives form the 
figure, known as Chiasmus; in the latter half they are 
contrasted by anaphora. — In the following passages 
from §.16 onward, he finds reason to attack his opponents, 
because, being of good parentage, their incapacity makes 
them a disgrace to their ancestry, who relied upon their 
virtues for their elevation (§§. 21 — 23); then too, because 
they presume to lay claims to such positions, as should 
only be awarded to the good, they whose life is devoted 
to revelry and the gratification of their lusts (§§. 19, 20). 
After this discussion of the advantages of pedigree (genus), 
he turns to the educatio, which makes itself felt in the 
facility of speech, possessed by the nobility. His own in- 
efficiency in this respect he deems of little importance, since 
he requires, as he says, no devices of oratory to serve as 
mantle for his evil actions, or as means of bringing into 
prominence his good deeds ; nor can his opponents with all 
their command of eloquence succeed in defaming his acts. 
Merely as a justification for the populace, whose confidence 
in him had been made the subject of violent attacks, he 
intends to prove by a description of his life, that he is 
worthy of the trust reposed in him. His ignorance of the 
Greek language and literature he represents as an advantage, 
since it prevented him from adapting Greek vices ; his pride 
is centred on his acquirements of those branches of know- 
ledge, that are of particular avail to the commonwealth 
(§. 34), and his appreciation of the merits of his soldiery 
in contradistinction to the want of regard, displayed by the 
indolent nobility for their subordinates in the field. — In 
§. 37 the speaker in contrast to the effrontery of the ari- 



28 



stocracy, who claim all privileges and immunities without 
any equivalent assumption of responsibilities, lauds the efforts 
of men of his own stamp to be „aemuli majorum", the 
rivals of the elder generations in thoroughness; the nobles 
on the other hand have obtained by inheritance all advan- 
tages but one, and that they make no efforts to obtain, 
namely Virtue. — The charge of avarice had been brought 
against him, for he had no desire for great banquets and 
drinking bouts; he confesses in §. 39 that he is averse to 
such scenes, that breathe nothing of the ancient simplicity 
of Rome, and is willing to resign his share of these en- 
joyments to his opponents, if they in return devote their 
entire energies to such worthy pursuits, and relinquish to 
more suitable men the earnest vocations of life; and to the 
accomplishment of this object he strenuously exhorts, urging 
upon his auditors the necessity of shielding the country from 
the detriment, that might result from the imprudence of 
these reckless men. — The conclusion is devoted to a sur- 
vey of the condition of the state and a stirring appeal to 
the populace, and therefore must be more lengthy, than the 
rhetoricians deem correct (Cornific. III., 15). It is an im- 
portant part of his task to give his hearers the assurance, 
that with the removal of inefficient leaders the bars to 
prosperity will rapidly fall, and the valor and expe- 
rience of the army will not be manifested in vain. A 
promise of glory, booty and victory constitutes the final 
and most alluring invitation to join his standards, although 
it was by no means the point, to which all the efforts of 
the orator were directed, for Marius had already previously 
been successful in gaining the favor of the populace, as is 
evident from the language of chap. 84 „tanta lubido cum 
Mario eundi plerosque invaserat", and from the laws of 
grammatical construction in §. 48 „tamen omnis bonos rei- 
publicae subvenire decebat, where the use of the indica- 
tive indicates that the action, implied in the infinitive clause 



29 

was actually carried out. Nevertheless the effect of the ora- 
tion was to increase his success (compare chap. 84, §. 4: 
„et eos non paulum oratione sua Marius auxerat". — It is 
certainly a very ingenious device, that once only in §. 3 
(bellum parare, cogere ad militiam eos, quos nolis offendere), 
in discussing the difficulties of his post, he alludes to the 
necessary recruiting of the soldiery, before he proceeds in 
his final summary to demand the assistance of the people 
and their participation in the conflict. A general glance at 
the whole oration shows that its object was the justification 
of the speaker himself, and on the other hand the attack 
on the nobility, which is carried on in a general manner, 
since the 7 direct objects of his insinuations were still too 
powerful to make an open declaration of warfare on his part 
advisable. Occasionally however certain remarks present 
a clue. to the truth, and therefore to the special objects of 
his enmity, as in §. 10: „sumat aliquem ex populo moni- 
torem officii sui", by which words his own former intimacy 
with Metellus is indicated, likewise in §. 45 : „quae ad hoc 
tempus Jugurtham tutata sunt, omnia removistis, avaritiam, 
imperitiam atque superbiam", where the vices just mentioned 
are characteristics respectively of the former commanders, 
Bestia, Albinus and Metellus, also in §. 46: „magna pars 
ejus avaritia aut temeritate ducum attrita est", and in §. 47: 
„ex imperatorum superbia". — Since the tendency of the 
oration is a twofold one, a demonstrative one and one of 
exhortation, the form of the development has been consider- 
ably modified, and we therefore find deviations from the 
theories of the rhetorical schools. — 



Following out the plan I have adopted, it becomes my 
duty to treat in similar manner as the previous two an 
oration, contained in the fragmentary work, known as the 
Historiae; and as the oration of Lepidus, the first in order, 



30 



has already been analyzed in the treatise of Fabricius 
„De M. Lepidi apud C. Sallustium oratione quaestio, Mos- 
quae, 1848" (who endeavors to deny it the value of a ge- 
nuine document; recent editors however, such as Kritz, 
Jordan, Jacobs, justly consider it genuine), I have selected 
that of L. Marcus Philippus (in the work of Kritz it is the 
51. fragment of the 1. book), which in rhetorical merit is 
at least the equal of the former. Lepidus, who had been 
sent to Etruria to suppress the revolt there, had collected 
troops for his private desings, and refused obedience, when 
the senate demanded his surrender and return to Rome; 
on the contrary he was desirous of carrying out his ne- 
farious plans, when his impudent demands had been reject- 
ed. At this very time, when his advancing army was 
threatening Rome, this oration roused the senate to a sense 
of the impending danger, and caused them to declare Le- 
pidus an enemy of the commonwealth. It appears that this 
speech like that of Caesar in the Catiline, belongs to the 
genus deliberativum; the speaker urges his auditors 
to attend without further delay to the solution of the matter 
at issue, and reproaches them for their untimely hesitation. 
In most simple terms the orator begins, rendering his hear- 
ers attentive (Cornific. I., 7; Cicero, Invent, 1., 23; Quintil. 
IV., 1. 33) by a brief exposition of the state of affairs; 
he then names the three conditions, which he considers 
necessary for the safety of the republic, viz: that before 
all, peace must be sought, then at the actual outbreak of 
sedition, that valiant defenders of the state be found, finally 
that the guilty receive the due penalty of their crimes. — 
This introduction in §. 1 is followed by the simplest form 
of nar ratio that is conceivable; and yet the comparison 
of the actual appearance of things with what they should 
be, arranged as they are in antitheses, constitute a strong 
and urgent chain of argument. In terse language he frames 
the whole issue, that war is certainly inevitable, and that 



31 

it is only questionable, whether the senate would prefer 
to suffer without resistance all indignities, or would take 
up arms (§. 2: nisi pacem praestare et bellum pati con- 
silium est). — Then in §.3 the situation both of the senate 
and of Lepidus is depicted, and the absence of rapid re- 
solution in the case of the former is reprehended, since it 
encourages the turbulence of the rebellions — minded in 
the community. The confirmatio and confutatio occupy 
the speaker after this. He mentions the excuse of the di- 
latory and peaceably - inclined senators, only to ridicule it 
(the covert manner of doing this the Greeks called fivxr?]- 
QiOfiog, see Quintilian, VIII., 6, 59), and then to deprive 
them by a lucid statement of the evil intentions of Lepidus 
of their retreat; he convinces them of the injury that has 
already resulted from their long delay (§§. 7 and 8). In 
mentioning the provinces, that are under the influence of 
the rebellious movement, he carries out a gradation (the 
Latin term gradatio has another signification, as in clear 
from Aquila Romanus, §. 40; [Julii Rufiniani] de Schematis 
Lexeos, 19: nor does the Greek term xXifial; correspond 
[Herodian, YIIL, 603, ed. Walz]; Cicero, Partit. Orator. 
§. 54 circumscribes the figure by the words „ea, quae as- 
cendunt gradatim ab humilioribus verbis ad superiora"), 
for the most important one, Asia, is mentioned last. — All 
these points are carefully combined to form an alarming 
array, nor does the orator fail to summon up the most dis- 
astrous possibilities in the words „subvortundum imperium". 
He spares no entreaties to prevent such calamitous results, 
shows that the various weaknesses of Lepidus invite speed} 7- 
action on their part, and contrasts the energy in good re- 
solves of the old Romans with the lack of moral courage, 
displayed by the senate, and the barefacedness of the in- 
surgents. The entire exposition shows the utility of rapid 
resolves, and the safety and honor it is likely to bring to 
those concerned (in imitation of Cicero, Inv. II., 157 later 



32 




003 234 079 9 • 



rhetoricians have separated the honestum from the utile 
in place of making it a subdivision of the latter, as Em- 
porius, De deliberativa Materia, p. 571, 13 and Victorinus 
to Cicero's Rhetorica, pag. 162, line 15 in Halm's Rhetores 
Latini minores). In §. 14 the speaker proceeds to another 
portion of his subject, in which he strives to remove singly 
the causes of doubt from the minds of his hearers. He 
proves that Lepidus has violated those very considerations, 
that he has demanded for himself. In these statements 
variety in the phraseology is becomingly resorted to in the 
connection of the contrasted statements („ait sua cuique 
reddi et aliena tenet; belli jura rescindi, cum ipse armis 
cogat, civitatem confirmare, quibus ademptam denegat"). 
Exposing (§. 15) the wicked designs of Lepidus, the orator 
suddenly breaks out into a direct address to the public 
enemy (this figure of Apostrophe Aquila Ronianus, §. 9 
calls aversio, Martianus Capella, de Arte Rhetor, chap. 38 
calls it „conversio in aliquem districta"; 'Quintilian, IX., 
2, 37 calls it „ avers us sermo, qui mire movet, sive ad- 
versaries invadimus, sive at invocationem aliquam conver- 
timur, sive ad invidiosam implorationem"), accuses him ve- 
hemently of dissimulation, want of veracity, and boundless 
greed. From this digression he returns to his subject, holds 
up as a warning the atrocities of Cinna, and proposes as 
the only remedy that they forthwith entrust the administrat- 
ors of the government with full power to crush Lepidus. 
This oration, containing as it does all those elements that 
tend to enhance the value of such a production, is certainly 
an extremely favorable specimen of that kind of oratory, 
which, though it seems to be the result of one spontaneous 
effort, yet shows the excellent influence of rhetorical culture. 



l 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

II II II llll I III INI III I II I! 



003 234 079 9 # 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



003 234 079 9 



